Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Egypt Arbitration Award of 13 April 1991 (Cairo Chamber of Commerce and Industry) [English text available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910413e1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19910413 (13 April 1991)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; Egypt

TRIBUNAL: Cairo Chamber of Commerce and Industry

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 19/1990

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Asian country (claimant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: African country (respondent)

GOODS INVOLVED: Grain


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Unclear. The choice of law clause read: "In accordance with the provisions and terms of international contracts in practice in foreign commercial transactions for the sale of such commodities." The opinion includes a quotation of CISG Article 36.

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 36

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Excerpt from Hossam A. El-Saghir, "The Interpretation of the CISG in the Arab World" (2008)

"Th[is] dispute concerns a C&F contract for the sale of grains concluded between an Asian seller and an Egyptian buyer. The contract contained a dispute settlement clause that provides for arbitration and that the provisions and terms of international contracts in practice in foreign commercial transactions for the sale of such commodities apply to such disputes. When inspected at the port of destination, the Egyptian Agricultural Quarantine Department found the grains to be infected with insects. The Department thus ordered the grains to be dusted. Consequently, the buyer initiated arbitration proceedings.

"The Panel relied on the fact that the contract was C&F to rule in favor of the seller. The Panel reasoned that under C&F contracts, the risk passes to the buyer at the time the goods cross the ship's rail. It added that the buyer has failed to prove that the defect existed at that moment. Surprisingly, the Panel referred to the CISG, Article 36, but based its decision on the application of the Incoterms. It did so without inquiring the applicability of the CISG to the dispute. Why the Panel mentioned Article 36 and the extent to which it based its decision on its application is ambiguous."

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=426&step=Abstract>

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (English): Arbitral Awards of the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Obligations, Kluwer (2000) 23-37; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=426&step=FullText>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Larry A. DiMatteo et al., 34 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (Winter 2004) 299-440 at n.609

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated October 28, 2008
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography